AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 219 wordsPETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum. Respondent as the complaint filed a complaint before the District Forum complaining excessive electricity bills. He made allegations against some officers of he department that on the basis of wrong report submitted by them wrong bills were sent to him. It is not necessary to go into the allegations levelled against those officers except to note that considering the load of electric connection to the house in question of 0.5 KW and there were only four live points, under the circumstances District Forum allowed the complaint and directed he petitioner to correct the bills on the basis of he average consumption for the last one year without charging any surcharge or interest. Complainant was also awarded Rs. 500/- as costs.
PETITIONER appealed to the State Commission. It was contended that there was no deficiency in service and the allegations made by complainant were not correct. As we have said above, those allegations need not be gone into as on other factors District Forum allowed the complaint. State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. We find no ground for us to take a different view in exercise of our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Act. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed. ______________